Ombudsman’s testimony possibly ‘the game-ender,’ says lawyer
To one private lawyer, Monday’s testimony of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on Chief Justice Renato Corona’s dollar deposits could be “the game-ender” of his impeachment trial.
But Corona’s high-powered defense team admonished critics: Go easy, you haven’t heard the Chief Justice yet.
“If (the bank accounts) were true and he does not explain them credibly, that would be the game-ender,” former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez said in a phone interview. “The nature of the testimony is devastating.”
But Chavez stressed the importance of allowing Corona’s lawyers to finish their case before making any conclusion.
University of the East law dean Amado Valdez said Morales’ testimony essentially uncovered what the defense had been trying to keep under wraps, and she brought the most “meaningful” evidence in the trial.
“It’s very ironic that the defense witness in the person of the Ombudsman is the one that will break the camel’s back,” Valdez said. If Corona fails to explain the dollar accounts, he may very well be convicted, he said.
Romulo Macalintal, an impeachment analyst, said the Ombudsman’s presentation should be taken for what it is until Corona takes the witness stand.
“We still have to hear what the Chief Justice will say if he has an explanation with regard to the flow of transactions as reported by the AMLC (Anti-Money Laundering Council),” Macalintal said.
“It’s important that he has to testify. He has to face it.”
Political decision
Macalintal said whether or not the AMLC report and Morales’ presentation were admitted as evidence would not matter.
“There’s no standard of evidence. Because not all of the senator-judges are lawyers, they will build the case and judge it in their minds. The case will be judged politically,” he said.
The lead prosecutor, Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., said revelations that the Chief Justice had $12 million in 82 separate bank accounts “shock the sensibilities of the people to outrageous levels.”
The Iloilo lawmaker said the transactions would be ‘‘very difficult to explain.”
“I can’t understand the strategy of the defense. Until now I can’t decipher why they called the Ombudsman,” he said.
Too early to celebrate
Asked if the “game was over” for the Chief Justice, Tupas said: “I can’t say that… Let’s not celebrate yet because there’s no conviction yet.”
Tupas also said: “We know from the very beginning that there are bank accounts, but we did not imagine, even in our wildest dreams, that the amounts would be this huge and extensive.”
Corona’s lawyers sounded unfazed. Retired Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas, lead defense counsel, dismissed as “hearsay” Morales’ testimony.
“What did she testify for? Those are nothing. She did not even have personal knowledge on those bank accounts. We cannot even (grill) her on the veracity of the documents and the accuracy of the figures,” Cuevas told reporters.
‘Wait for our turn’
Asked if he considered Morales’ testimony damaging, Cuevas said: “Those are just transaction accounts. There were no opening and closing balances. Which of those accounts are already closed? Which of those are still active? (Morales) cannot testify on that.”
He said the defense had asked the Senate to subpoena AMLC executive director Vicente Aquino to testify on the bank documents which the council supposedly provided Morales.
“Please wait for our turn to explain before you judge us,” Cuevas told reporters. “The investigation on these dollar accounts [is] prohibited under [Republic Act No.] 6426. Those could be just their concoction.”
Political analyst Ramon Casiple saw matters differently.
“This is the smoking gun evidence prosecutors have been waiting for,” Casiple said, adding: “Ombudsman Carpio Morales has given Chief Justice Corona his crown of thorns … Either he resigns or he testifies to make his explanations.” With reports from Marlon Ramos, Leila Salaverria, Philip Tubeza, Michael Ubac and Jerome Aning
